I don't disagree. The city gets more revenue from a tax abated property with PILOTs because it isn't shared with the schools. Personally, I want to see thschool board starved. It's too bloated and inefficient. A private school could do wonders if they got $29,000 per capita. Instead, Jersey City school kids are treated like pawns.

Abatements artificially keep our taxes high because they are not added to the ratable base. Using the 2017 formula, the residents had a tax rate of $78 per thousand. If tax abatement were ratables, then the rate would probably be around $55 per thousand. That is the reason why other towns do not grant tax abatements.

The laws for tax abatement were changed by the 31st District who were also lawyers and working for the developers. Tax abatements prior to 1990 could only go to affordable housing. Society Hill which is more toxic than Porte Liberte did not receive a tax abatement. Neither did Dixon Mills or the first 4 buildings in Newport. Later, Mayor Cucci gave Newport a tax abatement for 271 units of affordable housing. LeFrac place ads in the New York Post and that affordable housing mainly went to New Yorkers. Newport also was built on contaminated soil. The bottom line, developers were building without tax abatements on contaminated land prior to the change in the tax abatement laws.

I'm not going to get into details here Yvonne, but you don't seem to understand the idea behind tax abatements. Let me explain how it works where I'm living now. I live in Port Liberté. 40 years ago this area was a total mess, it was filled with toxins and other really bad crap, and other than the fact that it was on the waterfront, had not a damn thing going for it. How much do you think it would have contributed to tax roles? Not much. So the city government at the time realized that some impetus should be given to a developer to get the area going again. The impetus was the right to sell the finished properties on this piece of land with a tax discount that would end in 30 years. They turned that decrepit piece of land into an oasis on the water. 30 years after the abatement went into effect, 440 fully rate-able units are now on the tax rolls, instead of the zero that would probably be here if no abatement was offered.

Hoboken, OTOH, doesn't have vast wastelands with toxic sludge or no development. They may have small pockets, but land there is incredibly valuable, so no abatements are needed.

I use to volunteer and tape Hoboken meetings for a friend. Hoboken has a very small school population. While I don't recall the exact number, it is less than 3,000 with the city population probably close to 60,000 residents. Hoboken is smart in the fact they do not give tax abatements, so everyone is paying with the exception of public housing and some senior housing. I finally got the figures recently, JC has exempt $12 billion from the ratable base that is not paying school taxes. This is the 2018 reval figure.

Hoboken was 1.592 last year, and no one made a stink about their Abbott. At least you can see the Abbott money in their schools, they have far more extracurriculars and enrichment.

Of course no one made a stink about their Abbott: Hoboken pays for 80% of their school operating budget! It's not about Abbott status. Even when you look at total revenue for the Hoboken school district, the revenue from all state sources, including grants, amounts to ~34% (24.5MM out of 72MM). That's a far cry from the current situation in JC, where the city pays for about 17% of the local school budget. That's really the issue that I think (would assume) other municipalities will use to lobby for reduced assistance.

I had a laugh when DanL was trying to justify the current funding!

The school tax rate will soar in the coming years, hitting the revaled downtown properties hardest but will hurt literally everyone.

Hoboken was 1.592 last year, and no one made a stink about their Abbott. At least you can see the Abbott money in their schools, they have far more extracurriculars and enrichment.

Of course no one made a stink about their Abbott: Hoboken pays for 80% of their school operating budget! It's not about Abbott status. Even when you look at total revenue for the Hoboken school district, the revenue from all state sources, including grants, amounts to ~34% (24.5MM out of 72MM). That's a far cry from the current situation in JC, where the city pays for about 17% of the local school budget. That's really the issue that I think (would assume) other municipalities will use to lobby for reduced assistance.

THIS. That's an incredibly low rate, which will only embolden state legislators and other municipalities to lobby for reduced financial support for JC. It's just not possible to claim poverty and inability to support the local schools when you are levying what is likely the lowest property tax rate in the entire state.

And, last I checked, the avg rate in NJ is 2.4%. This party is surely over.

THIS. That's an incredibly low rate, which will only embolden state legislators and other municipalities to lobby for reduced financial support for JC. It's just not possible to claim poverty and inability to support the local schools when you are levying what is likely the lowest property tax rate in the entire state.

*Sigh* Yvonne relaying words from Councilman Yun. But I oddly enough believe her this time. The 1.62% number was preliminary and did not factor in commercial properties at that time. It seemed way to high since most properties would be paying more while few would be paying less. The 1.42% is more in line of a zero sum. Some will pay more, some will pay less, some will stay the same.

who is bemoaning tax breaks and loopholes? i don't have a problem with tax breaks and loopholes. i said that if congress does not want people to benefit from tax breaks and loopholes that it should eliminate them. a

and, honestly, i don't need you to tell me whether or not i should or should not be distraught over amt. thx

hero69 wrote:then congress should get rid of the tax breaks and loopholes if it doesn't want people to take advantage of them. tax breaks and loopholes are supposed to be an incentive to do "good" so why are some people penalized for doing "good"

First you were "distraught" because the AMT was kept in place, (even though it was raised to 500K / 1MM...) and now you are bemoaning tax breaks and loopholes, which is precisely what the AMT is supposed to address (by preventing their abuse to skip out on paying a fair share of taxes.)

Here is what I think: I don't think you have a clue what the AMT is, or what it was originally intended to do. You heard something, somewhere about the evil of AMT and ran with it not understanding what it is you are trying to feel distraught about before writing your post.

Tax breaks and loopholes are NOT "supposed to be an incentive to do "good"" as you claim in your post. They are, in essence, a form of social engineering disguised as federal policy. Did you know that back in the 80s, you could deduct credit card interest? You think that's because encouraging people to rack up debt was a net good for them? Today's mortgage interest deduction is there to encourage home ownership, mostly because there is a widely held belief that homeownership is the path to achieve middle class status. That may have been a solid truth in the past, but nowadays you have lots of upper middle class, and even rich people, who do not actually own a home, and instead choose to rent, for a variety of reasons. Of course, homeownership still remains a reliable path to achieve and maintain middle class status, but it is neither foolproof (remember 2007?) nor the only one.

As Dolomiti points out, the point to this latest tax reform was to streamline and reduce the complexity of the current tax system by eliminating many of the existing provisions and quirks. But, of course, it is impossible to please everyone.

hero69 wrote:then congress should get rid of the tax breaks and loopholes if it doesn't want people to take advantage of them. tax breaks and loopholes are supposed to be an incentive to do "good" so why are some people penalized for doing "good"

Erm... Yes, part of the original plan of this tax reform was to get rid of a bunch of custom tax breaks.

The problem is that every single permutation of the tax code has its own constituency, which rabidly defends its perqs.

hero69 wrote:tax breaks and loopholes are supposed to be an incentive to do "good"

I think we've identified the source of your problem! Tax breaks and loopholes are mostly pork for contributors. There's a portion that are supposed to create fairness, like SALT, but that has gone down in the partisan bloodbath.

then congress should get rid of the tax breaks and loopholes if it doesn't want people to take advantage of them. tax breaks and loopholes are supposed to be an incentive to do "good" so why are some people penalized for doing "good"

hero69 wrote:whether this affects me or not is irrelevant, why should people be penalized for being successful?

Welcome to the Republican Party.

Seriously, though... you are making the opposite argument of most liberals who advocate for a progressive tax system. That is, incrementally higher taxes for those making more. The more you make, the more you pay, not just in actual dollars, but actual percentages. The AMT was instituted to ensure that very well to do people would not be able to take advantage of tax breaks and loopholes to avoid paying defined minimums. Over time, as salaries have soared for many segments of the population, more and more of us are stuck paying the AMT. And, trust me, it sucks to pay it every year. But, now you are saying you are OK with people not having to pay a minimum amount of tax by taking/exploiting all kinds of loopholes and breaks? I think you got your talking points mixed up.